Games run well on macs. For example, UT2k3 runs far better on my Dual 1Ghz DDR GF4Ti thna my friends Dual 1Ghz PIII GF4Ti. Absolutely thrashes it.Same goes for Halo performance.
Apple produces fine machines for gaming: Apple produces one of the best "gaming" machines out there.
G5's have a huge RAM ceiling of 8 GB(with ready support for PT (petabytes, or 1000 TeraBytes) is it?)(edit: i calculate 1,800 PtB), ATi 9800 card upgrade, with more video options coming soon, SATA standard, RAID is a viable option for load times, Dual G5's...geeze what more could you want?
Right now, as it stands, my 1.6Ghz single does really well with all of the games released today. Halo runs smoother than I have ever seen a FPS run. (way to go for MacSoft for porting such a good game well) Games tested: Indiana Jones, UT2003, UT2004, Quake3, UT, UT Game of the Year, more..
As for UT (the game right after Unreal), you couldn't get higher frame rates ... the OS X version upgrade on versiontracker.com provides all you need to get it working in Jag or Panther.
The most cost-effective way to game still is console. FPS, RPG, Action, Side Scroller...the console wins. Top graphics, and FPS controls, they do not. The computer wins here, but remember that this comes with high costs, as generally the computer is made for the software, and not the other way around.
And that's for starters. What's that B,&W G3's graphics card supposed to accomplish with a G5 attached to it? A system meltdown?
my point was simly in regard to the encloser, not the specs, but obviously what i meant was, as i said slap in a g5, which also implies all the essentails, beefeir power supply, g5 mobo, fast ram, sata hdd, superdrive and so on and so on,
what kind of fool would actualy suggest putting a g5 in a g3 mainboard????
I dont think an Apple console is the answer, and I dont think Apple's machines are all that bad. My 'gaming' PC is Duron 850 with an ATI Radeon DDR.
Apple had good, well supported solutions, like the Game Sprockets, which they dropped. Is there an input API yet!!!? Im aware of a third party extension for game pads. Thats a pretty sad state of affairs. Is there any official support for 3d positional sound? Most people use headphones, so not having 5.1 out isnt a big issue. OpenAL is _a_ solution, but how hard are Apple pushing it?
Do Apple even have a game development evangelist anymore?
Why dont the Apple stores carry a really strong line of games? The Honolulu store is weak weak weak. There are games out there.
Why dont the Apple stores show off game playing power?
Ever since day one Steve has discouraged gaming on Macs, because of a fear it will make the machine look like a toy. I dont think we will ever see the cultural change required at Apple to make games an important part of their strategy. Its easy for them to say "Just get a console", but it really ignores the problem. And worse, so much interesting software dev is done for games, puching the envelope. Well that envelope aint getting pushed on the Mac.
I think that Apples string game support in the OS 8/9 days comes from not Steve. Its gone. Mourn its passing. Get a console and a PC.
Personally, I run a Mac and PC using VNC and win2vnc to keep the keyboard clutter down.
Apple had good, well supported solutions, like the Game Sprockets, which they dropped. Is there an input API yet!!!?
HID Manager, which has been in place and stable for some years now.
It's lower level than Game Sprockets.
Quote:
Ever since day one Steve has discouraged gaming on Macs, because of a fear it will make the machine look like a toy. I dont think we will ever see the cultural change required at Apple to make games an important part of their strategy.
Actually, Steve did a very public turn-around on that issue not long after he came back. Companies like id Software came on board in no small part because Steve reached out to them and asked them what they wanted (we have John Carmack to thank for Apple's decision to implement a complete, robust, system-standard OpenGL implementation, for instance).
Apple's game developer resources start here, and they include useful things like a cross-platform networking API.
If there's a problem, it's that the Mac gaming market is tiny. Apple's evangelizing and hard work got us most A-list titles within a few months of their PC release - which is better than where we were - but the ultimate arbiter of the number of games we get, and their quality, and their release dates relative to the PC rlease dates, is the size of the Mac gamiing market.
HID Manager, which has been in place and stable for some years now.
And this highlights the sort of problems game devs face - if you go to Apple's game dev page the link to HID documentation is a 404, handy.
Quote:
Actually, Steve did a very public turn-around on that issue not long after he came back.
But I dont think Apple has followed through. Repeatedley through Mac history games have been on the cusp, only to be left unwatered, to die.
Quote:
If there's a problem, it's that the Mac gaming market is tiny. Apple's evangelizing and hard work got us most A-list titles within a few months of their PC release - which is better than where we were.
But the Mac market is relatively small for _ALL_ software, yet Alias sell 40% of Maya on the Mac. This can work for games too. Lots of Mac owners are well heeled, and do buy software. Games are an easy purchase for people with money. But Apple have to get in hard, with _SUPER_ ( better than MS ) support for game devs, and some 1st party titles to boot. The key is follow through. If they do it ONCE, then it will fail, it has to go on for YEARS to attract snowballing attention.
I know that Apple has a presence for games at various conferences ( GDC, WWDC ), but they need a week long workshop where game devs can bring problems and see solutions. When Apple provides EASY support, you'll see skunk works support for os x ports ( just like the NWN port to BeOS ) which will make simultaneous releases possible, which makes releasing a mac game financially feasible.
But I dont think Apple has followed through. Repeatedley through Mac history games have been on the cusp, only to be left unwatered, to die.
Is this Apple's fault, or the fault of the market?
Quote:
But the Mac market is relatively small for _ALL_ software, yet Alias sell 40% of Maya on the Mac.
In other words, the Mac market is not relatively small for all software.
Maya is basically UNIX workstation software, and Apple is the #1 UNIX(-like) vendor in volume by leaps and bounds. That, and a full-blown OpenGL implementation (which is the main reason to buy a high-end 3D card, incidentally, at least on the PC side), are what convinced Alias to jump: Apple looks big to a company whose bread and butter is SGI.
Apple is huge in audio production, huge in content creation generally. These are markets that are much smaller than the general consumer market, and Apple's numbers in these markets are far higher than in the general consumer market. The people who write apps in these markets know this, and target the Mac.
Quote:
This can work for games too. Lots of Mac owners are well heeled, and do buy software.
Of course it can work, but "can" doesn't sell anything. The software that Mac users buy tends to be high quality and well supported because there are a fair number of us in real terms. And Mac users are well heeled and they buy software because that software (and hardware) earns them money. It's a consequence of the fact that Macs are disproportionately a production platform. And guess what? If you want to find a gaming market, you don't generally look at production machines.
There aren't a lot of Mac gamers. There could be, and there are no doubt more than there were, but believe me, game developers aren't willfully withholding themselves from a burgeoning market. Most game code is at least platform-agnostic by its very nature, and DirectX is basically a bastard OpenGL, so porting isn't that hard. There's just not that much of an incentive to do it. id Software does it for the same reason they do Linux versions: Because "it's the right thing to do" in Carmack's own words, and (implicitly) because they make enough from the Windows sales to be able to do the right thing. Not everyone is id.
Quote:
Games are an easy purchase for people with money. But Apple have to get in hard, with _SUPER_ ( better than MS ) support for game devs, and some 1st party titles to boot.
Games are an easy purchase for people with money, but again, that doesn't sell games. I have money, and I've bought maybe one title every five years, on average. I could buy many more titles, but there's no reason for me to: I'd never play them. Hell, I haven't even finished Oni, and that game's how old now?
Beating MS on developer support generally is a tall order. MS developers are spoiled silly, as long as they play in the sandbox.
Console developer support, on the other hand, is classically a contradiction in terms. But the console game market dwarfs the PC game market, so developers target them anyway.
If there's a market, game publishers will come. Game developers will do what they're given the funds to do, and that includes designing the code to run and run well on Macs from the outset, and targeting OpenGL, etc. Apple support is a bonus, but most of it's pretty much in place, and the rest is coming along quickly (Xcode, etc.).
Quote:
I know that Apple has a presence for games at various conferences ( GDC, WWDC ), but they need a week long workshop where game devs can bring problems and see solutions. When Apple provides EASY support, you'll see skunk works support for os x ports ( just like the NWN port to BeOS ) which will make simultaneous releases possible, which makes releasing a mac game financially feasible.
At the end of the day, markets make games financially feasible, or not. NWN was intended to be cross platform from the get-go (remember when the Mac version would be a simultaneous release, including the toolset?), so it's fairly exceptional. To the extent that it strayed, it was because the publisher wasn't willing to pay the extra cost to keep that goal alive, and they weren't willing to make that investment because they didn't believe they'd get a return on it. It really is just as simple as that.
Also, any developer who signs up for Apple's premium developer support can expect lots of help from Cupertino with whatever they need. Even little Nisus had the attention of Apple's CoreFoundation team, to improve OS X's text handling capabilities. So that isn't a problem (and Apple's annual fee is peanuts to a professional development house).
Is this Apple's fault, or the fault of the market?
Maybe its just me, but everything you're saying boils down to "Apple dont support gaming properly". The potential is there. But without real, ongoing attention it will never take off. Its like looking at a bare patch of dirt and waiting for the garden to grow on its own.
IMHO, the problem is not a hardware one. It may well be that Apple just cant afford to support a strong game market. I dont think that is true, I think the lack of support stems from an fundamental anti game ( or just dont care about games ) attitutde that they cant lift for long enough to attract developers.
Maybe its just me, but everything you're saying boils down to "Apple dont support gaming properly".
That's because that's the conclusion you want to hear.
Taking myself as an example, that doesn't wash. Apple can evangelize all they want. I don't play games much because I don't play games much. I'm aware of the resurgence of Mac gaming because I watched it with great interest, read interviews and .plans and whatever else I could get my hands on. But I hardly bought anything.
As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Quote:
IMHO, the problem is not a hardware one. It may well be that Apple just cant afford to support a strong game market. I dont think that is true, I think the lack of support stems from an fundamental anti game ( or just dont care about games ) attitutde that they cant lift for long enough to attract developers.
Apple's current support for games is unparalleled in the history of the Macintosh. (For that matter, their developer support generally is better than it's ever been, by leaps and bounds.) They went out, talked to developers, talked to publishers, built the support they wanted into the OS, hired people specifically to showcase games on their site, etc. I've offered evidence; you've just dismissed what you haven't ignored out of hand. If there was any anti-game attitude, believe me, I wouldn't be able to summon a shred of evidence otherwise. Nobody does a cold shoulder like Apple does.
But Apple can't make their installed base buy games. The installed base has to do that on their own. And they aren't doing it, or we'd have more games.
The bottom line, and the entire content of my message, is: If you want games for the Mac, buy them. Apple's done an incredible amount of work to get us where we are. The responsibility at this point lies entirely with the end users.
200 gets you a PS2. With the extra 800 you save over the K or so needed for a gaming rig, you'll be swimming in games and peripherals.
So a grand gets you a PS2 and at least 12 games, but more like 20 if you shop smart, to say nothing of the PS1 back catalogue. Are there really 12-20 must have games out for the PC in any given 3-4 year stretch? No, for that matter, there probably aren't that many for a console either. And lets not get into mod chips. Between the excellent software support provided by the chinese community, and the previously enjoyed bin at the local video store, you can easily put a PS2 and 30-40 games in your AV center for similar money to a mid level gaming tower.
I would venture that the games that are better suited to a computer: sims, RTS, puzzels... they basically run well on any computer mac or PC. 8-16 bit emulation aswell. Incedentally, that's all the fun stuff too. Only the networked FPS game has any real advantage on the PC, and they're largely the same old crap over and over and over and over again.
With 802.11 doing really well and prices dropping, by the time we're playing on yBox and PS3, they'll both come with a good browser and generic 802.11 connection that just works with whatever home ISP you use. Between HDTV and airport consoles will conquer the last bastions of PC gaming.
200 gets you a PS2. With the extra 800 you save over the K or so needed for a gaming rig, you'll be swimming in games and peripherals.
So a grand gets you a PS2 and at least 12 games, but more like 20 if you shop smart, to say nothing of the PS1 back catalogue. Are there really 12-20 must have games out for the PC in any given 3-4 year stretch? No, for that matter, there probably aren't that many for a console either. And lets not get into mod chips. Between the excellent software support provided by the chinese community, and the previously enjoyed bin at the local video store, you can easily put a PS2 and 30-40 games in your AV center for similar money to a mid level gaming tower.
I would venture that the games that are better suited to a computer: sims, RTS, puzzels... they basically run well on any computer mac or PC. 8-16 bit emulation aswell. Incedentally, that's all the fun stuff too. Only the networked FPS game has any real advantage on the PC, and they're largely the same old crap over and over and over and over again.
With 802.11 doing really well and prices dropping, by the time we're playing on yBox and PS3, they'll both come with a good browser and generic 802.11 connection that just works with whatever home ISP you use. Between HDTV and airport consoles will conquer the last bastions of PC gaming.
I really have to question the logic of PC gamers.
Just because you don't care for PC games is no reason to question the logic of PC gamers.
A lot of PC gamers also have consoles and play both types of games. Personally, I don't care for console games -- I don't like the controls, the graphics or game-play of most of them.
I really like team based networked FPS. I also like RTS games, and combat fight simulators. All of which are a lot of fun on computers, but kind of suck on consoles. That makes me a PC/Mac gamer.
People who say "get a console" just don't seem to realize that it all comes down to taste -- people who like console games will buy them, and people who like computer games will stick with computers.
No, the kinds of games that are good on the PC, and for which the keyboard/mouse/monitor makes a difference tend by and large not to be the kinds of games that require the fastest system. Thusly, a mac is fine, as is any old PC, when it comes to sims, RTS, and puzzles. The networked FPS game is the only advantage of the computer, period.
I'll ask again, how many really good "unique" games come out in that genre in any given 3-4 years stretch? It looks like more of the same stuff from here.
And do they look that much better than anything on an Xbox or PS2? Of course they don't, not FF, HoTD, or Halo, or you name it.
It's not a case of cheaper being better or just cheaper, its a case of the targetted system of a console being more suited to the majority of tasks most of the time. It's cheap, which leaves more room for games, which is supposed to be the point. It's easy to hook up to a big screen, has better controls, simpler interface, is sturdier, doesn't crash or require driver updates.
It's just better most of the time, and in a generation it's going to be the better option all of the time.
PC games can be fun, but its no reason to buy any computer.
I played Tribes: Ariel Assault for the PS2 with my online hookup in multiplayer mode for a while, and it was a fantastic game. I think the developers of the new UT2k4 used some of the idea's from that game in their new game. They are a lot alike in way's that make each of them better than ut2k3. Based on my experience with Tribes AA I'd have to say that online play in multiplayer shooters isn't a problem with consoles. Unless maybe you were using dial-up, or something.
No, the kinds of games that are good on the PC, and for which the keyboard/mouse/monitor makes a difference tend by and large not to be the kinds of games that require the fastest system. Thusly, a mac is fine, as is any old PC, when it comes to sims, RTS, and puzzles. The networked FPS game is the only advantage of the computer, period.
This is a bit confusing -- You admit that sims, RTS, and puzzles are better on computers than they are a consoles, then say that it is only networked FPS that are better on the computer...
For the games I play, sims, RTS, and FPS, the computer is far superior to consoles.
Quote:
I'll ask again, how many really good "unique" games come out in that genre in any given 3-4 years stretch? It looks like more of the same stuff from here.
And do they look that much better than anything on an Xbox or PS2? Of course they don't, not FF, HoTD, or Halo, or you name it.
I probably buy about 5 titles a year, and the games give me hundreds of hours of enjoyment per year. (UT alone brought me over 500 hours of entertainment over a three year period).
And yes, games look much better on a computer then on a TV screen, if you can't see the difference it is time to get new glasses.
Quote:
It's not a case of cheaper being better or just cheaper, its a case of the targetted system of a console being more suited to the majority of tasks most of the time. It's cheap, which leaves more room for games, which is supposed to be the point. It's easy to hook up to a big screen, has better controls, simpler interface, is sturdier, doesn't crash or require driver updates.
It's cheeper -- I give you that.
easy to hook up to a big screen -- You can also hook your computer up to a TV screen, but who would want to? TV screens don't look nearly as nice as large computer monitor's.
Better controls -- On that you have to be kidding. The computer has keyboard and mouse, a huge selection of joysticks peddles and throttles/weapon-pods for flight simulators, specialized gaming pads and arcade controllers, plus all the yucky game-pad console type of controllers you could possibly want (most of the games I play do not work well at all with console type controllers).
simpler interface -- != better interface. Some games like UT2k3 you can tell were ported form a console game because of its cheesy interface.
sturdier -- most of us don't plan on dropping our computers.
doesn't crash or require driver updates -- neither does my Mac
Quote:
It's just better most of the time, and in a generation it's going to be the better option all of the time.
Right now the only thing I would use a console for would be an oversized paperweight -- and it is way over priced for that!
In future generations you might be right, but I think that it is more likely that consoles and computers will sort of merge together.
Quote:
PC games can be fun, but its no reason to buy any computer.
You are going to have to be a little more open minded on this Matsu -- Games are the only reason I and thousands of other people build computers (and they are a primary factor for hundreds of thousands of computer buyers).
This is a bit confusing -- You admit that sims, RTS, and puzzles are better on computers than they are a consoles, then say that it is only networked FPS that are better on the computer...
For the games I play, sims, RTS, and FPS, the computer is far superior to consoles.
You are going to have to be a little more open minded on this Matsu -- Games are the only reason I and thousands of other people build computers (and they are a primary factor for hundreds of thousands of computer buyers).
You don't get it.
For sims, RTS, and puzzels you don't need to build your own computer, any old budget machine will be just fine, as will any mac. The selection isn't so broad that you can't find satisfaction on the mac, if that's what you crave.
The only one specific genre that might require a home rolled high horsepower rig with a keyboard/mouse/high res display is the networked FPS. As for FPS, halo proves you don't need a computer to do it, but the networked part isn't exactly as open as it could be on the console systems.
yBox and PS3 will fix this, they'll have the output resolutions (HDTV/DVI-out) and network capabilities to make them suitable to all the genres, and they will come with keyboards if only because they will likely come with web browsers.
I seriously doubt 5 good FPS games come out every year. Maybe two, and even those are derivative of previous efforts. If there are 5, you can pretty much buy one and an experience thats 99% the same as what you'd have gotten from the other 3-4.
So, for now, unless FPS is that important to you, and you have problems if it is, there's no reason to build a computer just for gaming. Just buy the machine you would use for everything else (email, IM, Office, iApps, file sharing, graphic design) and it will work well for KVM centric games too. Get a console and give the controller a chance, you'll have a better system with a greater variety of games.
Those guys play UT 13 (the sequel to the sequel's roomate's cousin) on some online game server, for the 500th hour this year... they aren't going anywhere in life, except maybe Columbine.
No Matsu, it is you that seems not to be getting it (maybe if you read my whole post instead of responding only to the first paragraph you would).
I don't like consoles and think that the are a waste of money, and I explained my reasons why. Why can't you accept that some people prefer to play games on computers rather then a consoles?
Anyway, this has gotten way off topic and you seem to be getting a little touchy. If you want to continue bashing computer gamers you should probably start a new thread in AO.
The games I _do_ play on my gamecube are good, and I dont think they would gain a lot from being on a PC ( Zelda, Super Monkey, Metroid ), but a lot of that is because they are designed for the console.
The flip side is that there are a lot of games that are designed for the very rich input of a PC ( keyboard + mouse ), and it is hard to translate that rich input to the relatively sparse input of a console. There are very few buttons on a gamepad, and an analoge stick is _not_ equivalent to a mouse ( one is relative, the other is absolute - try moving your mouse with a joystick ). The games that happen to benefit most from those inputs are the ones that currently dominate PC gaming, FPS, RTS, mouse orientated puzzles.
Now, that is not to say that these sorts of games cant be designed for consoles, Halo is a good example of a well executed console FPS. But what you will find is that the console experience is different to the PC, simply because of the design choices that are forced upon the game by the input scheme.
You put someone on the console port of a PC game up against PC gamers and see how badly they get beaten. As long as the playing field is level ( console v console ) it is fine.
For sure, a lot PC games can run on relatively lowly machines, it is just good economic sense, but "real" gamers have high end boxes so they can have all they eye candy. And that eye candy does make a difference to how well you play. Dont call gamers names because they take their hobby seriously, its just like being really into your sport, so you buy weirdo graphite thingies and wacko shoes to get a little better performance. You might not understand, because you are a casual gamer, and you might not understand the difference between games that to you seem the same ( try telling a tennis player that they should all play squash, just cos it uses a racket and a ball and is mostly the same ).
Unfortunately the Mac doesnt have a lot of games. My favourites are Counter Strike, the Total War series, and Emperor of Dune. Im sure there are more, that are very similar that I would like to, but they aint on the Mac either ( not that I have time to play any more games ).
I don't get some people on this board. All I ever read about is "the experience of this or that is so great on the Mac and thats why I use one". Well I totally understand and I agree. But that "experience" also applies to other platforms. I have an Alienware Area 51m, PS2, PowerBook and iMac. I can say without a shadow of a doubt, no questions asked, hands down, no way in hell that any one of my systems can compare to the Alienware. Its not about cost! Its about the experience. And until you actually own one or spend about two weeks with/on a real gaming system then you DON'T know what you are talking about.
Yes Consoles are good & cheap. But the experience is much better on a kick arse gaming PC.
Comments
G5's have a huge RAM ceiling of 8 GB(with ready support for PT (petabytes, or 1000 TeraBytes) is it?)(edit: i calculate 1,800 PtB), ATi 9800 card upgrade, with more video options coming soon, SATA standard, RAID is a viable option for load times, Dual G5's...geeze what more could you want?
Right now, as it stands, my 1.6Ghz single does really well with all of the games released today. Halo runs smoother than I have ever seen a FPS run. (way to go for MacSoft for porting such a good game well) Games tested: Indiana Jones, UT2003, UT2004, Quake3, UT, UT Game of the Year, more..
As for UT (the game right after Unreal), you couldn't get higher frame rates ... the OS X version upgrade on versiontracker.com provides all you need to get it working in Jag or Panther.
The most cost-effective way to game still is console. FPS, RPG, Action, Side Scroller...the console wins. Top graphics, and FPS controls, they do not. The computer wins here, but remember that this comes with high costs, as generally the computer is made for the software, and not the other way around.
-walloo.
Originally posted by onlooker
Keep hittin the pipe there Dopey.
Alienware area 51 gaming machine:
AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 Processor
1GB Registered DDR SDRAM PC-3200
120GB Seagate Serial ATA 8MB Cache
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB
Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
for $2,956.00 before rebates.
And that's for starters. What's that B,&W G3's graphics card supposed to accomplish with a G5 attached to it? A system meltdown?
my point was simly in regard to the encloser, not the specs, but obviously what i meant was, as i said slap in a g5, which also implies all the essentails, beefeir power supply, g5 mobo, fast ram, sata hdd, superdrive and so on and so on,
what kind of fool would actualy suggest putting a g5 in a g3 mainboard????
Apple had good, well supported solutions, like the Game Sprockets, which they dropped. Is there an input API yet!!!? Im aware of a third party extension for game pads. Thats a pretty sad state of affairs. Is there any official support for 3d positional sound? Most people use headphones, so not having 5.1 out isnt a big issue. OpenAL is _a_ solution, but how hard are Apple pushing it?
Do Apple even have a game development evangelist anymore?
Why dont the Apple stores carry a really strong line of games? The Honolulu store is weak weak weak. There are games out there.
Why dont the Apple stores show off game playing power?
Ever since day one Steve has discouraged gaming on Macs, because of a fear it will make the machine look like a toy. I dont think we will ever see the cultural change required at Apple to make games an important part of their strategy. Its easy for them to say "Just get a console", but it really ignores the problem. And worse, so much interesting software dev is done for games, puching the envelope. Well that envelope aint getting pushed on the Mac.
I think that Apples string game support in the OS 8/9 days comes from not Steve. Its gone. Mourn its passing. Get a console and a PC.
Personally, I run a Mac and PC using VNC and win2vnc to keep the keyboard clutter down.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Apple had good, well supported solutions, like the Game Sprockets, which they dropped. Is there an input API yet!!!?
HID Manager, which has been in place and stable for some years now.
It's lower level than Game Sprockets.
Ever since day one Steve has discouraged gaming on Macs, because of a fear it will make the machine look like a toy. I dont think we will ever see the cultural change required at Apple to make games an important part of their strategy.
Actually, Steve did a very public turn-around on that issue not long after he came back. Companies like id Software came on board in no small part because Steve reached out to them and asked them what they wanted (we have John Carmack to thank for Apple's decision to implement a complete, robust, system-standard OpenGL implementation, for instance).
Apple's game developer resources start here, and they include useful things like a cross-platform networking API.
If there's a problem, it's that the Mac gaming market is tiny. Apple's evangelizing and hard work got us most A-list titles within a few months of their PC release - which is better than where we were - but the ultimate arbiter of the number of games we get, and their quality, and their release dates relative to the PC rlease dates, is the size of the Mac gamiing market.
HID Manager, which has been in place and stable for some years now.
And this highlights the sort of problems game devs face - if you go to Apple's game dev page the link to HID documentation is a 404, handy.
Actually, Steve did a very public turn-around on that issue not long after he came back.
But I dont think Apple has followed through. Repeatedley through Mac history games have been on the cusp, only to be left unwatered, to die.
If there's a problem, it's that the Mac gaming market is tiny. Apple's evangelizing and hard work got us most A-list titles within a few months of their PC release - which is better than where we were.
But the Mac market is relatively small for _ALL_ software, yet Alias sell 40% of Maya on the Mac. This can work for games too. Lots of Mac owners are well heeled, and do buy software. Games are an easy purchase for people with money. But Apple have to get in hard, with _SUPER_ ( better than MS ) support for game devs, and some 1st party titles to boot. The key is follow through. If they do it ONCE, then it will fail, it has to go on for YEARS to attract snowballing attention.
I know that Apple has a presence for games at various conferences ( GDC, WWDC ), but they need a week long workshop where game devs can bring problems and see solutions. When Apple provides EASY support, you'll see skunk works support for os x ports ( just like the NWN port to BeOS ) which will make simultaneous releases possible, which makes releasing a mac game financially feasible.
Originally posted by mmmpie
But I dont think Apple has followed through. Repeatedley through Mac history games have been on the cusp, only to be left unwatered, to die.
Is this Apple's fault, or the fault of the market?
But the Mac market is relatively small for _ALL_ software, yet Alias sell 40% of Maya on the Mac.
In other words, the Mac market is not relatively small for all software.
Maya is basically UNIX workstation software, and Apple is the #1 UNIX(-like) vendor in volume by leaps and bounds. That, and a full-blown OpenGL implementation (which is the main reason to buy a high-end 3D card, incidentally, at least on the PC side), are what convinced Alias to jump: Apple looks big to a company whose bread and butter is SGI.
Apple is huge in audio production, huge in content creation generally. These are markets that are much smaller than the general consumer market, and Apple's numbers in these markets are far higher than in the general consumer market. The people who write apps in these markets know this, and target the Mac.
This can work for games too. Lots of Mac owners are well heeled, and do buy software.
Of course it can work, but "can" doesn't sell anything. The software that Mac users buy tends to be high quality and well supported because there are a fair number of us in real terms. And Mac users are well heeled and they buy software because that software (and hardware) earns them money. It's a consequence of the fact that Macs are disproportionately a production platform. And guess what? If you want to find a gaming market, you don't generally look at production machines.
There aren't a lot of Mac gamers. There could be, and there are no doubt more than there were, but believe me, game developers aren't willfully withholding themselves from a burgeoning market. Most game code is at least platform-agnostic by its very nature, and DirectX is basically a bastard OpenGL, so porting isn't that hard. There's just not that much of an incentive to do it. id Software does it for the same reason they do Linux versions: Because "it's the right thing to do" in Carmack's own words, and (implicitly) because they make enough from the Windows sales to be able to do the right thing. Not everyone is id.
Games are an easy purchase for people with money. But Apple have to get in hard, with _SUPER_ ( better than MS ) support for game devs, and some 1st party titles to boot.
Games are an easy purchase for people with money, but again, that doesn't sell games. I have money, and I've bought maybe one title every five years, on average. I could buy many more titles, but there's no reason for me to: I'd never play them. Hell, I haven't even finished Oni, and that game's how old now?
Beating MS on developer support generally is a tall order. MS developers are spoiled silly, as long as they play in the sandbox.
Console developer support, on the other hand, is classically a contradiction in terms. But the console game market dwarfs the PC game market, so developers target them anyway.
If there's a market, game publishers will come. Game developers will do what they're given the funds to do, and that includes designing the code to run and run well on Macs from the outset, and targeting OpenGL, etc. Apple support is a bonus, but most of it's pretty much in place, and the rest is coming along quickly (Xcode, etc.).
I know that Apple has a presence for games at various conferences ( GDC, WWDC ), but they need a week long workshop where game devs can bring problems and see solutions. When Apple provides EASY support, you'll see skunk works support for os x ports ( just like the NWN port to BeOS ) which will make simultaneous releases possible, which makes releasing a mac game financially feasible.
At the end of the day, markets make games financially feasible, or not. NWN was intended to be cross platform from the get-go (remember when the Mac version would be a simultaneous release, including the toolset?), so it's fairly exceptional. To the extent that it strayed, it was because the publisher wasn't willing to pay the extra cost to keep that goal alive, and they weren't willing to make that investment because they didn't believe they'd get a return on it. It really is just as simple as that.
Also, any developer who signs up for Apple's premium developer support can expect lots of help from Cupertino with whatever they need. Even little Nisus had the attention of Apple's CoreFoundation team, to improve OS X's text handling capabilities. So that isn't a problem (and Apple's annual fee is peanuts to a professional development house).
Originally posted by Amorph
Is this Apple's fault, or the fault of the market?
Maybe its just me, but everything you're saying boils down to "Apple dont support gaming properly". The potential is there. But without real, ongoing attention it will never take off. Its like looking at a bare patch of dirt and waiting for the garden to grow on its own.
IMHO, the problem is not a hardware one. It may well be that Apple just cant afford to support a strong game market. I dont think that is true, I think the lack of support stems from an fundamental anti game ( or just dont care about games ) attitutde that they cant lift for long enough to attract developers.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Maybe its just me, but everything you're saying boils down to "Apple dont support gaming properly".
That's because that's the conclusion you want to hear.
Taking myself as an example, that doesn't wash. Apple can evangelize all they want. I don't play games much because I don't play games much. I'm aware of the resurgence of Mac gaming because I watched it with great interest, read interviews and .plans and whatever else I could get my hands on. But I hardly bought anything.
As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
IMHO, the problem is not a hardware one. It may well be that Apple just cant afford to support a strong game market. I dont think that is true, I think the lack of support stems from an fundamental anti game ( or just dont care about games ) attitutde that they cant lift for long enough to attract developers.
Apple's current support for games is unparalleled in the history of the Macintosh. (For that matter, their developer support generally is better than it's ever been, by leaps and bounds.) They went out, talked to developers, talked to publishers, built the support they wanted into the OS, hired people specifically to showcase games on their site, etc. I've offered evidence; you've just dismissed what you haven't ignored out of hand. If there was any anti-game attitude, believe me, I wouldn't be able to summon a shred of evidence otherwise. Nobody does a cold shoulder like Apple does.
But Apple can't make their installed base buy games. The installed base has to do that on their own. And they aren't doing it, or we'd have more games.
The bottom line, and the entire content of my message, is: If you want games for the Mac, buy them. Apple's done an incredible amount of work to get us where we are. The responsibility at this point lies entirely with the end users.
200 gets you a PS2. With the extra 800 you save over the K or so needed for a gaming rig, you'll be swimming in games and peripherals.
So a grand gets you a PS2 and at least 12 games, but more like 20 if you shop smart, to say nothing of the PS1 back catalogue. Are there really 12-20 must have games out for the PC in any given 3-4 year stretch? No, for that matter, there probably aren't that many for a console either. And lets not get into mod chips. Between the excellent software support provided by the chinese community, and the previously enjoyed bin at the local video store, you can easily put a PS2 and 30-40 games in your AV center for similar money to a mid level gaming tower.
I would venture that the games that are better suited to a computer: sims, RTS, puzzels... they basically run well on any computer mac or PC. 8-16 bit emulation aswell. Incedentally, that's all the fun stuff too. Only the networked FPS game has any real advantage on the PC, and they're largely the same old crap over and over and over and over again.
With 802.11 doing really well and prices dropping, by the time we're playing on yBox and PS3, they'll both come with a good browser and generic 802.11 connection that just works with whatever home ISP you use. Between HDTV and airport consoles will conquer the last bastions of PC gaming.
I really have to question the logic of PC gamers.
Originally posted by Matsu
Why not get a console for games?
200 gets you a PS2. With the extra 800 you save over the K or so needed for a gaming rig, you'll be swimming in games and peripherals.
So a grand gets you a PS2 and at least 12 games, but more like 20 if you shop smart, to say nothing of the PS1 back catalogue. Are there really 12-20 must have games out for the PC in any given 3-4 year stretch? No, for that matter, there probably aren't that many for a console either. And lets not get into mod chips. Between the excellent software support provided by the chinese community, and the previously enjoyed bin at the local video store, you can easily put a PS2 and 30-40 games in your AV center for similar money to a mid level gaming tower.
I would venture that the games that are better suited to a computer: sims, RTS, puzzels... they basically run well on any computer mac or PC. 8-16 bit emulation aswell. Incedentally, that's all the fun stuff too. Only the networked FPS game has any real advantage on the PC, and they're largely the same old crap over and over and over and over again.
With 802.11 doing really well and prices dropping, by the time we're playing on yBox and PS3, they'll both come with a good browser and generic 802.11 connection that just works with whatever home ISP you use. Between HDTV and airport consoles will conquer the last bastions of PC gaming.
I really have to question the logic of PC gamers.
Just because you don't care for PC games is no reason to question the logic of PC gamers.
A lot of PC gamers also have consoles and play both types of games. Personally, I don't care for console games -- I don't like the controls, the graphics or game-play of most of them.
I really like team based networked FPS. I also like RTS games, and combat fight simulators. All of which are a lot of fun on computers, but kind of suck on consoles. That makes me a PC/Mac gamer.
People who say "get a console" just don't seem to realize that it all comes down to taste -- people who like console games will buy them, and people who like computer games will stick with computers.
Cheaper != Better.
I'll ask again, how many really good "unique" games come out in that genre in any given 3-4 years stretch? It looks like more of the same stuff from here.
And do they look that much better than anything on an Xbox or PS2? Of course they don't, not FF, HoTD, or Halo, or you name it.
It's not a case of cheaper being better or just cheaper, its a case of the targetted system of a console being more suited to the majority of tasks most of the time. It's cheap, which leaves more room for games, which is supposed to be the point. It's easy to hook up to a big screen, has better controls, simpler interface, is sturdier, doesn't crash or require driver updates.
It's just better most of the time, and in a generation it's going to be the better option all of the time.
PC games can be fun, but its no reason to buy any computer.
Originally posted by Matsu
No, the kinds of games that are good on the PC, and for which the keyboard/mouse/monitor makes a difference tend by and large not to be the kinds of games that require the fastest system. Thusly, a mac is fine, as is any old PC, when it comes to sims, RTS, and puzzles. The networked FPS game is the only advantage of the computer, period.
This is a bit confusing -- You admit that sims, RTS, and puzzles are better on computers than they are a consoles, then say that it is only networked FPS that are better on the computer...
For the games I play, sims, RTS, and FPS, the computer is far superior to consoles.
I'll ask again, how many really good "unique" games come out in that genre in any given 3-4 years stretch? It looks like more of the same stuff from here.
And do they look that much better than anything on an Xbox or PS2? Of course they don't, not FF, HoTD, or Halo, or you name it.
I probably buy about 5 titles a year, and the games give me hundreds of hours of enjoyment per year. (UT alone brought me over 500 hours of entertainment over a three year period).
And yes, games look much better on a computer then on a TV screen, if you can't see the difference it is time to get new glasses.
It's not a case of cheaper being better or just cheaper, its a case of the targetted system of a console being more suited to the majority of tasks most of the time. It's cheap, which leaves more room for games, which is supposed to be the point. It's easy to hook up to a big screen, has better controls, simpler interface, is sturdier, doesn't crash or require driver updates.
It's cheeper -- I give you that.
easy to hook up to a big screen -- You can also hook your computer up to a TV screen, but who would want to? TV screens don't look nearly as nice as large computer monitor's.
Better controls -- On that you have to be kidding. The computer has keyboard and mouse, a huge selection of joysticks peddles and throttles/weapon-pods for flight simulators, specialized gaming pads and arcade controllers, plus all the yucky game-pad console type of controllers you could possibly want (most of the games I play do not work well at all with console type controllers).
simpler interface -- != better interface. Some games like UT2k3 you can tell were ported form a console game because of its cheesy interface.
sturdier -- most of us don't plan on dropping our computers.
doesn't crash or require driver updates -- neither does my Mac
It's just better most of the time, and in a generation it's going to be the better option all of the time.
Right now the only thing I would use a console for would be an oversized paperweight -- and it is way over priced for that!
In future generations you might be right, but I think that it is more likely that consoles and computers will sort of merge together.
PC games can be fun, but its no reason to buy any computer.
You are going to have to be a little more open minded on this Matsu -- Games are the only reason I and thousands of other people build computers (and they are a primary factor for hundreds of thousands of computer buyers).
Originally posted by Res
This is a bit confusing -- You admit that sims, RTS, and puzzles are better on computers than they are a consoles, then say that it is only networked FPS that are better on the computer...
For the games I play, sims, RTS, and FPS, the computer is far superior to consoles.
You are going to have to be a little more open minded on this Matsu -- Games are the only reason I and thousands of other people build computers (and they are a primary factor for hundreds of thousands of computer buyers).
You don't get it.
For sims, RTS, and puzzels you don't need to build your own computer, any old budget machine will be just fine, as will any mac. The selection isn't so broad that you can't find satisfaction on the mac, if that's what you crave.
The only one specific genre that might require a home rolled high horsepower rig with a keyboard/mouse/high res display is the networked FPS. As for FPS, halo proves you don't need a computer to do it, but the networked part isn't exactly as open as it could be on the console systems.
yBox and PS3 will fix this, they'll have the output resolutions (HDTV/DVI-out) and network capabilities to make them suitable to all the genres, and they will come with keyboards if only because they will likely come with web browsers.
I seriously doubt 5 good FPS games come out every year. Maybe two, and even those are derivative of previous efforts. If there are 5, you can pretty much buy one and an experience thats 99% the same as what you'd have gotten from the other 3-4.
So, for now, unless FPS is that important to you, and you have problems if it is, there's no reason to build a computer just for gaming. Just buy the machine you would use for everything else (email, IM, Office, iApps, file sharing, graphic design) and it will work well for KVM centric games too. Get a console and give the controller a chance, you'll have a better system with a greater variety of games.
Those guys play UT 13 (the sequel to the sequel's roomate's cousin) on some online game server, for the 500th hour this year... they aren't going anywhere in life, except maybe Columbine.
I don't like consoles and think that the are a waste of money, and I explained my reasons why. Why can't you accept that some people prefer to play games on computers rather then a consoles?
Anyway, this has gotten way off topic and you seem to be getting a little touchy. If you want to continue bashing computer gamers you should probably start a new thread in AO.
The flip side is that there are a lot of games that are designed for the very rich input of a PC ( keyboard + mouse ), and it is hard to translate that rich input to the relatively sparse input of a console. There are very few buttons on a gamepad, and an analoge stick is _not_ equivalent to a mouse ( one is relative, the other is absolute - try moving your mouse with a joystick ). The games that happen to benefit most from those inputs are the ones that currently dominate PC gaming, FPS, RTS, mouse orientated puzzles.
Now, that is not to say that these sorts of games cant be designed for consoles, Halo is a good example of a well executed console FPS. But what you will find is that the console experience is different to the PC, simply because of the design choices that are forced upon the game by the input scheme.
You put someone on the console port of a PC game up against PC gamers and see how badly they get beaten. As long as the playing field is level ( console v console ) it is fine.
For sure, a lot PC games can run on relatively lowly machines, it is just good economic sense, but "real" gamers have high end boxes so they can have all they eye candy. And that eye candy does make a difference to how well you play. Dont call gamers names because they take their hobby seriously, its just like being really into your sport, so you buy weirdo graphite thingies and wacko shoes to get a little better performance. You might not understand, because you are a casual gamer, and you might not understand the difference between games that to you seem the same ( try telling a tennis player that they should all play squash, just cos it uses a racket and a ball and is mostly the same ).
Unfortunately the Mac doesnt have a lot of games. My favourites are Counter Strike, the Total War series, and Emperor of Dune. Im sure there are more, that are very similar that I would like to, but they aint on the Mac either ( not that I have time to play any more games ).
Yes Consoles are good & cheap. But the experience is much better on a kick arse gaming PC.